New Review: Help At Any Cost

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

An angry teenager loose in your house can be an awfully terrifying prospect. If it’s your teenager it’s even worse because (in theory) you actually love this person and you don’t want to see them get hurt. While it is typical for all teenagers to go through an oppositional and defiant stage in their development, when you add illicit drugs and underage sex into the mix with parents who are often ill-equipped to soothe the savage beasts running roughshod throughout their homes, you have a recipe for certain disaster.
In most cases, the average parent doesn’t want their child on drugs, even if they themselves are using drugs in the home. In the best of families, you’ll have parents who have never used drugs or have long since stopped, but will try everything in their power to dissuade their child from using. Some kids might respond appropriately, others will have some difficulty. Many kids will destroy household items, hurt a parent or sibling, and get arrested for being in possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia. Some will get arrested for selling the drugs they covet.

When life gets to this point and parents have nowhere else to turn, many will seek outside help. Often this begins with outpatient rehabilitation consisting of individual, group, and family therapy. But when that fails, as it often does, the system will just remove the child from the home and place them in residential care. Parents with money can seek out private residential rehabs, while others will have to settle for places the state recommends that are also covered by Medicaid.

Many of the residential programs kids are sent to, such as the one I work in, will do as much as possible to treat the clients with dignity and respect. In my program, it’s completely hands off, the gate is always open, and the clients can write grievances against the staff if they feel they are being treated unfairly. We also actually help many of the kids kick their drug habit and I’ve personally helped reunite over a dozen families since October 2005.

But there is a darker side to the helping industry that exposes an undercurrent of child abuse so pervasive that it has strong connections to the Republican Party. “Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids” by Maia Szalavitz catalogs the history of how abusive teen-help came into existence, how they’ve destroyed many kid's lives, and why they are allowed to continue operating today. What you’ll learn in this book will disturb and horrify any decent person with a conscience. Continued

Comic Book Review: The Adventures of Carrie Giver

One of the activist campaigns I'm involved with and very much support is the proposition to convert the child tax credit to a caregiver credit. In other words, those that spend there days caring for the elderly, the infirmed and of course children, would be given a tax credit.

While the numbers work in favor of the people that support this idea, explaining to those who could make a reality is a different story. First off, many people still believe that caring for people should not be paid labor, unless of course you are being paid to take care of a complete stranger...which doesn't really make a lot of sense to me but I digress.

The Caregiver Credit Campaign has come up with a great way to make their message heard in way that's both informative and entertaining. I very smart woman once said to me that since politicians don't want nor have time to read anything important, you have to feed them information in bite-size portions. Thus these folks have taken their efforts and placed them in of all things, a comic book! After all, everybody loves a good superhero story .

The Adventures of Carrie Giver, focuses on a superhero who spends her nights avenging the loss of her own family by rescuing choking children and abused wives. Her alter ego is Carrie Miller, a Department of Labor policy wonk who struggles to convince politicians that America needs a Caregiver Tax Credit, which would provide a tax credit to mothers and other caregivers who aren’t paid for their work. The comic was published by TR Rose Associates, 212-755-4801.

Carrie Giver uses astral projection, as made famous by the X-Men (actually, she does strongly resemble Psylocke before she turned into a killer ninja), to be in two places at once. This is a fairly obvious allusion to the idea that caregivers are very much stretched thin and often have to in fact be in two places at once.

As both an entertaining story and a tool to lobby lawmakers to do something productive for women, I think The Adventures of Carrie Giver works pretty well. It's as educational as it needs to be without being heavyhanded and preachy. Carrie is actually a lot like Spiderman as she attempts to balance her day life as a lobbyist with her nightlife as a superhero. There's even the tragedy element that haunts all good heros.

For comic book fans and social activists alike, I would highly recommend The Adventures of Carrie Giver.

Washington opposes seats for Venezuela and Cuba on U.N. bodies

Yet another example of how the UN is just a backwards organization. This time it is Cuba whom wants in the UN Human Rights Commission.

The Bush administration is battling to stop Venezuela and Cuba from gaining seats in important U.N. posts in a confrontation that has many Latin American nations caught in the middle, diplomats and analysts say.

Most observers believe Washington faces an uphill battle to keep Venezuela out of the Security Council and Cuba out of a newly created U.N. Human Rights Council.

While President Bush is generally disliked abroad, leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro have courted nations with a strong anti-U.S. discourse and offerings that range from discounted oil to free eye surgery.

The first showdown will take place May 9, when the 191-member U.N. General Assembly votes for 47 members of a new Human Rights Council. Eleven Latin American nations, including Venezuela and Cuba, are vying for eight spots reserved for the region.

Venezuela also wants to replace Argentina as one of the two Latin American members on the 15-seat Security Council. That election, to a two-year term, is expected in October.

''It is consistent with [Chávez's] quest to be a global player,'' said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think-tank, who noted that Chávez has supported Iran's nuclear program.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has personally appealed to countries not to vote for Venezuela, and Washington is making it clear it doesn't want Cuba or Venezuela in either U.N. agency.

''It's about ensuring that these organs in the U.N. are effective in upholding the principles of the U.N., and the membership is key,'' said Ben Chang, a spokesman for the U.S. mission before the United Nations.

The new Human Rights Council replaced the previous Commission on Human Rights, where countries accused of rights abuses like Cuba, Iran and Zimbabwe regularly became members and then worked to stop its condemnations.

In March, the United Nations created the new body with tougher membership requirements and other changes. But the U.S. government, arguing the reforms did not go far enough, voted against the new council and then declined to run for a seat.

Many human rights activists and diplomats believe Cuba has a good chance of winning a seat on the council, thanks to Havana's efficient diplomatic corps and friendships with other small and poor nations.

Washington, however, would view Cuba's election as a bad sign.

''It would be an unfortunate and sad statement that it's business as usual,'' said a State Department official, who asked for anonymity to speak freely on a delicate subject.

The other Latin American countries running for council seats are Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay, according to Human Rights Watch.

Diplomats say Venezuela's bid to join the council is more of a long shot because the country sharply criticized the resolution that created it. But its chances are much better at securing a Security Council seat.

Venezuela has been campaigning for months for the post, reaching out to countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, said Imeria Nuñez de Odreman, Venezuela's acting ambassador to the United Nations.

Venezuela needs at least two-thirds of the General Assembly votes and to beat out Guatemala, a U.S.-backed candidate for one of the rotating seats on the Security Council.

Rice asked Caribbean leaders to support Guatemala's bid when she met Caribbean Community leaders last month. U.S. and Latin American diplomats say she is also likely to raise the issue when she meets Friday with Alejandro Foxley, the foreign minister of Chile.

But most observers say Guatemala, despite U.S. support, has little chance of winning because it lacks Venezuela's worldwide reach.

Venezuela has 11 embassies in Africa -- a crucial voting bloc -- second only to Brazil and Cuba. And the Chávez government has aggressively used its oil wealth to gain more influence on the international stage, selling crude to Caribbean nations on easy terms, buying billions of dollars worth of bonds from Argentina and Ecuador and ordering oil tankers from Brazilian shipyards.

Iran Elected to UN Disarmament Commission

Folks, this is why I don't blog much anymore. Here we are trying to stop this country from arming itself as it threatens to build a bomb and send children to the frontlines of war with bombs strapped to their chest and the UN rewards this behavior by putting them on the DISARMAMENT COMMISSION!!!

This Iran issue and the UN itself has officially jumped the shark.

Under threat of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its own nuclear program, Iran has been elected to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission, whose mission includes deliberations on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

The commission's deliberations began last Monday and are scheduled to continue until April 28. On the first day of the commission meeting, Iran along with Uruguay and Chile was elected as one of eight vice-chairs, elected to serve for one year.

It happened on the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his people "good news" about the country's nuclear program.

The following day, Iran announced that it had managed to enrich uranium, a key ingredient in the production of a nuclear bomb.

On Monday, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that his country would continue to enrich uranium, and dismissed the idea that the U.S. might attack nuclear facilities in Iran.

"We are certain that Americans will not attack Iran because the consequences would be too dangerous," Rafasanjani was quoted as telling the Kuwaiti parliament.

Dr. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. said that electing Iran to a leadership position on the UN Disarmament Commission was like asking the "cat to guard the milk."

"Clearly the Iranians have an interest in establishing disarmament rules that protect their clandestine nuclear weapons program," said Gold, author of Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos.

"For the last decade and a half, Iran has appointed a very large diplomatic mission to the U.N. and has sought to obtain appointments to as many U.N. bodies as possible," said Gold in a telephone interview.

It is not a surprise, therefore, that Iran would find a place at the table of even the most sensitive committees, he said.

According to Gold, the various commissions at the U.N. establish the "background noise" and "international norms" that are adopted for dealing with problems worldwide.

"They have a way of penetrating the judgments of the U.N. secretariat and other U.N. bodies," he said.

The Disarmament Commission's new chairman, Joon Oh from South Korea, said prior to the group's meeting that it was not intended to be an isolated event but should be considered an integral part of worldwide disarmament efforts.

According to a release on the Disarmament Commission's website, the agenda items include recommendations for achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and "practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons."

The commission was established by a U.N. General Assembly resolution in 1978 to, among other things, pursue "effective international control of atomic energy" and make sure that atomic energy was used only for peaceful purposes.

While Iran's election to the commission is not a "decisive development," Gold said, it is "one link" in the chain that helps Iran use multi-lateral organizations to serve its interests.

Prof. Anne Bayefsky, who edits the Eye on the U.N. website, quoted U.N. Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, as saying that the commission "played a unique role" with "the advantage of being a fully universal deliberative body."

"This is the U.N. fiction, which brings us close to nuclear war with each passing day," Bayefsky said. "The allusion is to universal democracy, though the majority of voters is non-democratic and include thugs, racists and war-mongers."

As tensions grow over the situation in Iran, Washington has not ruled out the idea of a military option in dealing with Iran, though it has downplayed the idea.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently referred Iran to the Security Council, where the U.S. is pushing for sanctions to be leveled against the Islamic Republic.

But Gold said that if the U.N.'s dealings with Iraq set a precedent for its dealings elsewhere in the world, then it is not likely that the U.N. would be an effective body in dealing with Iran.

"The U.N. has long ago forfeited its role as an international body safeguarding international peace and security and this is just the latest proof of why the U.N. doesn't work," Gold said of Iran's election to vice chair the Disarmament Commission.

Iran says its nuclear development is for a civilian energy program but the U.S., Israel and other Western nations believe Iran is really developing nuclear weapons.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a U.S. think tank, released satellite images on Sunday showing that Iran had expanded its uranium enrichment site at Isfahan and has reinforced its underground site at Natanz.

London's Sunday Times quoted unnamed Iranian officials as saying that Iran had recruited and trained 40,000 suicide bombers, who were ready to attack American and British targets.

"We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," said Dr. Hassan Abbasi, head of the Center for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards.

New Review: The Psychology of The Simpsons: D'oh!

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

American pop culture is like an airborne virus. Once somebody gets it, they keep it for life and gleefully pass it on to anyone they know. Whether it’s music, TV, or movies, we entertain the world and the world (though some are loathe to admit it) just eats it all up. Everyone from the lowliest of citizens to dictators such as Kim Jung Il makes an effort to tap into a piece of American entertainment that suits their fancy.
So the question must be asked, "Why is it that a country that is allegedly so hated by the known world is the most sought after producer of entertainment goods?" It should follow that if the world hates the US, they should hate our music, TV, and movies. But as we all know, it doesn’t.

The reason is that the most beloved of American characters are the ones with universal appeal. While many of our favorite characters are distinctly American, the ones that transcend borders are the ones that relate to everyone, from Canada to East Timor to China. The very element that makes something work in America also makes it work far and wide.

That is why The Simpsons are so popular here and everywhere. Even though they are yellow and have four fingers, the characters that populate Springfield are very much consistent with real world behavior. Granted this is a satire cartoon program so there are limits, but the reason it’s worked for so long is that even though the situations tend to be absurd, those same situations carry with them threads of real life issues -- the kind of issues that every family and community deals with.

One issue that finds itself being both promoted and skewered on The Simpsons is psychology. Many times throughout the 16 seasons the characters play out scenarios that heavily rely on at least a cursory knowledge of psychology, pop or otherwise. We have Lisa quoting Freud, Bart getting diagnosed with ADHD, Homer becoming intelligent after removing a crayon from his nose/brain, family therapy with the late Dr. Marvin Monroe, etc.

It should come as no surprise then, that a group of practicing and teaching psychologists have compiled an anthology of essays taking modern themes of psychology and applying them to our beloved Simpsons sit-com. In much the same vein as “The Science of Star Wars,” “The Psychology of the Simpsons,” edited by Alan Brown, PhD with Chris Logan, looks at the Simpsons family and the larger population of Springfield through the prism of how these characters relate to psychological theory and practice. Continued

Iran's Oil Bourse: A Threat to the U.S. Economy?

As I've written about before, one of the reasons the US or Israel may end up bombing Iran is that they want to stop Tehran from opening up an oil bourse. The reason we don't like it is because they intend to trade oil for euros instead of dollars, thus causing untold damage to our economy. Now Drudge has an article up from Bloomberg.com stating that the Iranians are 16 days from having the bomb, according to the US State Department. Does this announcement have something to do with the bourse? All things are possible, read this and decide for yourself:

While Iran's nuclear program has become a major focus of the international media, there are many who strongly believe that the program is only a cover for the U.S. government's true motive in a possible attack against Iran.

What some analysts posit is the real concern for the United States is Iran's plan to open its own oil exchange — the Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB) — with the alleged goal of becoming the dominant center of the Middle East's oil trade.

What makes the IOB the subject of such interest by the American government? According to rumors, which first vaulted the issue into the spotlight, the financial exchange in the aforementioned bourse will trade for oil in euros instead of the U.S. dollar. The dollar has long been the dominant currency for international oil trade.
A Threat to the U.S. Economy?

The debate over the ultimate financial impact of trading oil in euros rather than dollars is a complex one, but according to some experts such a move could lead to a huge drop in value for the American currency, potentially putting the U.S. economy in its greatest crisis since the depression era of the 1930s.

The IOB has been on Iran's domestic agenda for quite some time and different dates have informally been announced for its opening, all which have been quietly disavowed as the deadline neared.

March 20, the most recent rumored date, was the first day of the Persian calendar year. The Iranian Oil Ministry's public relations department has denied that the date corresponded to the opening of the bourse, and has mostly remained silent about the existence of such a program.

Of course, the effectiveness of the IOB will depend on whether the big international oil trading companies decide to accept deals in euros or not. However, the potential financial impact on the U.S. economy remains more than just idle speculation.
"The weapon of oil in the hands of Iran's regime is more dangerous than any other weapon," said a recently published article in Italy's Panorama newsmagazine.

Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Mohammad Javad Assemipour, director of the IOB program, told Panorama that the oil trading center, due to open in a few months, will turn Iran into a major oil exchange point.

"Iran's oil exchange with the region's countries and also some of the East Asia states will take place in euros instead of U.S. dollars," said Assemipour.

Some of the major oil-producing countries such as Venezuela (which has boosted its economic ties to Iran) and a few of the larger oil consuming countries, most notably China and India, have already announced their support for the IOB. China and India, along with Russia, are powers that have at various times backed Iran's right to establish its own nuclear program.

There is speculation that the IOB represents Iran's plan to escape any possible future economic sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. However, some postulate that the plan could also endanger the continued existence of Iran's regime. William Clark, an American security expert, predicted that if Iran threatened the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the international oil market, the White House would immediately order a military attack against it.

Some Insist Impact will be Negligible

A number of economists believe that establishing the bourse will prove to be an impossible task for Iran.

"More than 68 percent of the global international oil exchange is in U.S. dollars, and by abandoning dollars Iran will put its own economy in greater danger," said an unnamed Iranian professor of Economics in Paris.

Other experts believe that even if the IOB commences operations, there is not much harm it can do to the U.S. economy.
"Given the fact that Iran's share of the international oil market is somewhere around 5 percent, I do not believe that it can really absorb enough customers around the globe," said Russian economist Natalia Arlova.

"And Iran's unstable political system is another obstacle. Let us not forget that one of the biggest characteristics of the international oil trade centers is stability. Apart from that, the reason the U.S. dollar has been the dominant currency in the oil trade is the huge share America has in the global economy. I do not think that only Iran's ambition to replace the dollar with the euro will be enough. There are much bigger factors."

However the IOB, to be located in the free trade zone of Iran's Kish Island on the Persian Gulf, remains a potential destabilizing factor for the U.S. economy. This, according to some strategic analysts, is a probable motive for the rumored U.S. attack against the country.

Experts point to the fact that the Iraq invasion in 2002 took place after Saddam Hussein refused to accept dollars as a payment medium for its oil exports and Oil For Food program, choosing euros instead. After discovering no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, speculations have been raised that the main cause for the invasion was the White House's fear of the possible financial repercussions of Saddam Hussein's plan to substitute dollars for euros.

Maybe it was that fateful decision by the former Iraqi president which was the last straw for the White House before it sent U.S. soldiers marching into Baghdad.

As Japan Studies Brazil Ethanol,Brazil Traders Bet On US

You may have read elsewhere that Iran is going forward with a full-scale uranium enrichment program. This of course has the oil market in a tizzy as crude is trading at a 7 month high of about $69.17 a barrel. Predictions for summer oil prices, which are always higher than normal, are that the price of oil will stay in the high 60's, possibly higher depending on whether or not we attack Iran's aforementioned nuclear sites.

So now would be an excellent time to re-examine our alternative fuel possibilities:

Brazil's state-owned oil firm Petrobras SA (PBR) on Monday signed a new agreement furthering ethanol export studies with Japanese trading company Mitsui (8031.TO), but local traders and analysts say they are far more excited about the U.S. market these days.

"Forget (Japan)," said Tarcilo Rodrigues, the director of Sao Paulo-based Bioagencia consultancy. "The U.S. is the big buyer this year."

"The top buyer of ethanol will definitely be the U.S.," agreed a local trader, adding that the possibility of the U.S. reducing its 54-cents-per-gallon direct ethanol import tax is looking more likely in coming months.

There are several reasons for a new Brazilian burst of enthusiasm about U.S. ethanol purchases, as well as lessened interest in Japan, say local traders.

For one, as the U.S. this year phases out its use of gasoline additive MTBE, which contaminates water supplies, its demand for a clean-burning oxygenate such as ethanol could sustain world ethanol prices between $500 and $550 per cubic meter, traders said. That is as much as 60% higher than a rough average of $350 per cubic meter last year, said traders.

"I think we'll have fewer exports this year, given the popularity of flex fuel cars on the local market, but U.S. demand will be high, supporting prices," said a Sao Paulo trader.

At the same time, the U.S. - which last year mandated an increase in renewable fuels to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012 - is projected to need plenty of Brazilian ethanol in future years, as demand outstrips supply even with extra U.S. ethanol-producing capacity estimated to come online.

"The U.S. is seeing Brazil as less of a threat and more as a complementary producer of ethanol these days, which means that they could lower their ethanol tariff," said Rodrigues. "Japan is different. As a country that doesn't produce ethanol, it wants to guarantee that Brazil can supply its market before starting purchases."

"These are different methods of buying ethanol, and while Japan is still studying the feasibility of fuel ethanol, we're already selling to the U.S.," Rodrigues added.

Other traders noted that despite Japan's ongoing viability studies, it may take years before the country finally agrees on guaranteed purchases of Brazilian fuel ethanol.

"Japan has been dilly-dallying about buying ethanol from Brazil since 2001," said a Riberao Preto trader. "I don't believe that they'll start buying fuel ethanol anytime soon, now that prices are far higher than they were five years ago."

"Japan will only become a fuel ethanol importer when other countries, such as India, also agree to supply ethanol," said another trader. "If I were Japan, I wouldn't rely solely on the Brazilian supply."

Still, in the medium- to long-term, prospects look good for a Japanese contract with Brazil, say Petrobras executives.

In March this year, Petrobras set up a joint venture with state-owned Japanese firm Nippon Alcohol Hanbai to export ethanol. The new company, Brazil-Japan Ethanol Co., serves as Petrobras' agency in Japan.

Meanwhile, in May 2005, Petrobras, Mitsui and Brazilian iron-ore giant Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (RIO) also jointly signed an agreement to study ethanol logistics in Brazil.

The new memo of understanding signed on Monday between Petrobras and Mitsui occurred during the visit of Brazil's Trade Minister Luiz Fernando Furlan to Japan.

Petrobras has estimated that Japan could import between 1.8 billion to 6 billion liters of ethanol, depending on whether the government mandates a 3% to 10% mix of ethanol in its gasoline.

In 2005, Japan bought roughly 315 billion liters of Brazilian ethanol, but solely for use in its chemicals and alcoholic beverages industries, according to data from Brazil's Agricultural Ministry.

By contrast, however, the U.S. in 2005 purchased roughly 260 million liters direct from Brazil, and an additional 454 million liters duty-free, under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which allows ethanol exports from El Salvador and other countries to enter the U.S. tax free.

Brazil is the world's largest sugar producer and exporter and the world's No. 2 ethanol producer after the U.S., but No. 1 ethanol exporter.

US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report

Whether you believe it is because of the "Israely lobby" or it because of an overall strategy to bring peace through war, it appears that the US is indeed going to bomb Iran's nuclear ambitions. At this point I'm rather ambivalent. When the pull-push in Iraq started I was anxious. I wanted it to start quickly because I thought that the longer we waited, the worse it would be for our troops. This time...this time I feel like this administration has bungled so much of our foreign policy that to me it doesn't matter when go into Iran or if we go into Iran at all.

Now in the past I've tried to shape my views of an Iran-attack through the prism of logic. I figured we'd be stopped by any alliance between Russia, China and Iran. What I've come to realize is that the Bush administration doesn't so much rely on logic as it does intuition. And as I've further realized, they have the intuition of a 6-year-old with ADD.

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W. Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran’s hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as “the new Hitler”, says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the West Asia, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, like the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Tehran.

Although Iran claims that its nuclear programme is peaceful, US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Tehran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within western intelligence about Iran’s plans.

This magazine disclosed recently that senior Pentagon strategists are updating plans to strike Iran’s nuclear sites with long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles.

And last week, the Sunday Telegraph reported a secret meeting where military chiefs and officials from Downing Street and the foreign office discussed the consequences of an US-led attack on Iran.

The military option is opposed by London and other European capitals. But there are growing fears in No 10 and the foreign office that the UK-led push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff, will be swept aside by hawks in Washington.

Hersh says that within the Bush administration, there are concerns that even a pummelling by conventional strikes, may not sufficiently damage Iran’s buried nuclear plants. Iran has been developing a series of bunkers and facilities to provide hidden command centres for its leaders and to protect its nuclear infrastructure.

The election of Ahmedinejad last year, has hardened attitudes within the Bush Administration.

Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official told Hersh. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’”

Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".

Publicly, the US insists it remains committed to diplomacy to solve the crisis. But with Russia apparently intent on vetoing any threat of punitive action at the UN, the Bush administration is also planning for unilateral military action. Hersh repeated his claims that the US has intensified clandestine activities inside Iran, using special forces to identify targets and establish contact with anti-Teheran ethnic-minority groups.

The senior defence officials said that Mr Bush is "determined to deny Iran the opportunity to begin a pilot programme, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium".

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so they say. In general, civilized humanity is a well-meaning lot. We act in ways that, in most cases, are only looking out for each others' best interest. Many of the greatest intellectual theories and philosophies are espoused with the best intentions for the greater population in mind.
Collectivism, for example, comes out of the idea that we should all help each other and share resources so that nobody suffers. We all rise as one or we fall. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that in theory, but as my father would say, it just doesn’t work with people. The same could be said of liberalism.

Liberalism at its core is the belief and/or practice of maximum choice. Lots of energy and change should be the lifeblood of society. Fearlessness and tolerance are liberalism's creed, and when you look at it from that angle, liberalism is not, by itself, a horrible philosophy. After all, when we speak of the modern day political and economic arenas, we say liberal democracies and liberal free markets are favorable to conservative regimes and command economies.

However, liberalism carried too far breeds chaos, as most Western conservatives will tell you. Today’s stalwart liberal believers will espouse all kinds of tools and programs infused with their belief system -- and do so without regard to outcome measurements and accountability. Criticism of liberal programs is met with hostile counter-rhetoric and apologies/excuses. The very people who are defined by a desire to help the most people in the end do more damage than good by trying to get the square peg of collectivist and humanistic thought into a naturally competitive societal round hole.

Now many conservatives have written books about all of this and have made a mint in doing so, but best selling author of “Useful Idiots” and former speech writer for Nancy Reagan, Mona Charen, has really nailed the history of liberalism's political and sociological failure in her new book, “Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (And the Rest of Us).” Charen's book is not in any way a ranting, Savage/Hannity-style tome of angry condemnations. Instead, it is actually a well-researched history book of how liberal policies were enacted over time and of their measured effects on our society far and wide. Continued

Doubts over Iran's saber-rattling

Is Iran playing chicken with the West? It's possible. Having betted that Russia and China would solidly back them at the UN and then coming up short (how short remains to be seen) it appears the mullahs new strategy is to not so subtly threaten American oil tankers in the Gulf with fancy new weapons. They've tried this tact before, as did Hussein and most recently, Hugo Chavez. All the crazy dictators have at one time or another threatened the US with their own military "prowess" in the hopes that we'd be too scared to invade them. What many people from foreign lands seem to misunderstand about is that no matter what the threat may be, if we decide to blow you up, nothing is going to stop us but our own will to keep Armageddon at bay.

Iran can have all the war games it wants, at the end of the day if the Israelis and/or we decide to start bombing Iranian nuclear plants, all the flying boats in the world won't stop us.

To be clear, JFK nearly went to nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Union at the time was a REAL nuclear threat. The only reason we haven't bombed N. Korea off the map yet is one, because of China's nuclear arsenal (courtesy of the Clinton Administration) and two, because we haven't found a way to do it yet without losing S. Korea. If we know that Russia and/or China won't retaliate then Iran hasn't got a prayer, should we decide that bomb diplomacy is the only language the mullahs understand.

On a side note, Secretary Rumsfeld, if you are listening, please, for the love of God, SECURE IRAQS BORDERS BEFORE BOMBING IRAN. Maybe it's just me but I'd like not to have a repeat of the Iraq war where you underestimate the locals and we end up being stuck waiting for the local dissidents to grow up and learn how to take care of country while foriegn insurgents terrorists kill our troops. I'm just saying is all.

Iran has unveiled with great fanfare a series of what it portrays as sophisticated, homegrown weapons — flying boats and missiles invisible to radar, torpedoes too fast to elude.

But experts said Tuesday it appears much of the technology came from Russia and questioned Iran's claims about the weapons' capabilities.

Still, the armaments, tested during war games by some 17,000 Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf, send what may be Iran's real message: its increased ability to hit oil tankers if tension with America turns to outright confrontation.

To underline that message, the maneuvers — code-named "The Great Prophet" — have been held since Friday around the Strait of Hormuz, the 34-mile-wide entrance to the Gulf through which about two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass.

The head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, proclaimed Tuesday that Iran was now able to defend itself against "any extra-regional invasion."

It was a clear reference to Iranian worries of potential U.S. military action to stop its nuclear program, which the U.S. claims is intended to produce nuclear weapons. Iran says it aims only to generate electricity but has so far defied U.N. Security Council demands that it give up key parts of its program.

The new weapons, many of them shown on Iranian state TV during their tests, have come with impressive claims:

• A missile, the Fajr-3, that is invisible to radar and able to strike several targets with multiple warheads.

• A high-speed torpedo, the Hoot, able to move at some 223 mph, up to four times faster than a normal torpedo, and fired by ships cloaked to radar.

• A surface-to-sea missile, the Kowsar, with remote-control and searching systems that cannot be scrambled.

• A "super-modern flying boat," undetectable by radar and able to launch missiles with precise targeting while skimming low over the surface of the water at a top speed of 100 nautical mph.
In Washington, D.C., Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said "the Iranians have been known to boast and exaggerate" their weapons capabilities.

And some experts cast doubt on just how radar-evading Iran's ships and missiles are.

Others questioned if Iran developed the weapons on its own.

The Hoot torpedo — the name means "whale" — closely resembles the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, the world's fastest known underwater missile, developed in 1995, said Ruslan Pukhov of Moscow's Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

Pukhov noted the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan once had a Soviet torpedo-testing center on the remote mountain lake of Issyk-Kul. And he said that in the turmoil that followed the Soviet breakup, Kyrgyz authorities sold Shkvals to the Chinese, a major importer of Iranian oil.

Whatever the Iranian armaments' capabilities — or origins — they're unlikely to affect the military balance of power in the Gulf, where the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet is based, operating out of the island nation of Bahrain.

For example, the Hoot torpedo — if indeed based on the Shkval — has too short a range, about 7,500 yards, to be militarily significant, said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian analyst.

Barbecue meats linked with prostate cancer

Well, I'm probably screwed here. I love a good barbecue. I love charred meat. As a matter of fact, my friends just took me to a Brazillian BBQ joint in my old hood of Long Island. This is the place that has put me in a meat coma for three consecutive birthday celebrations. Hot stuff, I know.

Obviously I'm not the only one who indulges on BBQ'ed meat. The outdoor BBQ is a staple of suburban Americana along with apple pie and Nancy Reagan. This picture of the dad at the grill while the kids play in the yard is probably one of the few wholesome images I have left of traditional family life in America. Once again, another good memory is shot to hell.

Who knows whether or not this will turn out to be true in humans as to date they tested this theory on rats but I suspect that my prostate has as much chance in staying free from cancer as Tom DeLay has of running for President of the United States.

A compound formed when meat is charred at high temperatures — as in barbecue — encourages the growth of prostate cancer in rats, researchers reported on Sunday.

Their study, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, may help explain the link between eating meat and a higher risk of prostate cancer.

It also fits in with other studies suggesting that cooking meat until it chars might cause cancer.

The compound, called PhIP, is formed when meat is cooked at very high temperatures, Dr. Angelo De Marzo and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reported.

It appears to both initiate and promote the growth of prostate cancer in rats, they said.

"We stumbled across a new potential interaction between ingestion of cooked meat in the diet and cancer in the rat," De Marzo said in a statement.

"For humans, the biggest problem is that it's extremely difficult to tell how much PhIP you've ingested, since different amounts are formed depending on cooking conditions."

For the study, Yatsutomo Nakai and other members of De Marzo's team mixed PhIP into food given to rats for up to eight weeks, then studied the animals' prostates, intestines and spleens. They found genetic mutations in all the organs after four weeks.

John McCain Warns of Iran 'Armageddon'

You know, you can't make heads or tails out of this Iranian situation from one day to the next. Aside from the bevy of opinions regarding an attack, you also have split opinions on whether sanctions would work. I for one think they won't. Sanctions have done nothing to stop N. Korea from flouting the worlds wants and needs and so I doubt it will change any minds in Tehran. At this point, the conventional wisdom states that Russia and China won't even vote for sanctions anyway. This is what made the latest UN resolution against Iran a paper tiger. There was no "or else" clause. There's no threat of action if the mullahs go ahead and tell the world community to get bent (as they have been since negotiations started).

So it's doubtful that sanctions, if enacted will have any effect and right now the military option appears to be up in the air and not very popular. However, the good senator from Arizona, John McCain has a slightly different opinion. Hey, he's the elected official not me so who knows:

2008 presidential hopeful John McCain said Sunday that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran over that country's nuclear program could be so serious they could lead to "Armageddon."

The Arizona Republican issued his dire warning after saying that before any military option against Iran is exercised, the world community must first put maximum pressure on Tehran through sanctions.

"We're going to the United Nations Security Council with our European allies," he told NBC's "Meet the Press." "We are seeking sanctions . . . . We must have sanctions against Iran."

McCain said that if sanctions fail, the U.S. must be prepared to resort to the use of military force.

"Would it be a difficult military option?" he asked rhetorically. "Sure, it would be a difficult military option. But you cannot remove it from the table."
Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert if the U.S. might find itself embroiled in two wars at once, McCain responded point blank:

"I think we could have Armageddon."

Without elaborating his the dire warning, the former Vietnam POW said there was still a chance that sanctions might work.

"If we handle this right, and our European allies stand with us, and the Russians and the Chinese stand with us, sanctions might do the job. And I am confident that this administration will exhaust every effort before contemplating seriously a military option."

New Review: Rome, Inc.

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

It was not too long ago that a series of multi-national corporations were exposed for a series of unethical practices, and then promptly went bankrupt. Enron was one of the biggest ones and probably the most noteworthy of the bunch, but they were certainly not alone. The mainstream press covered the rise and fall of several multi-national corporations, as if their demise were equal to a serial killer's crime wave.

This disastrous episode in American history is not an anomaly. In fact, as business author and corporate cog Stanley Bing points out in his new book, “Rome, Inc.: The Rise and Fall of the First Multinational Corporation,” Rome may have been the first Enron. “Rome, Inc.” is a comical and amusing way of studying how and why the Roman Empire came to be and then crumbled into the dust of history. Bing looks at the history of Rome through the prism of corporatism. Romulus and Caesar aren’t just rulers, they become CEOs. Each conquest and subjugation of territory transforms into acquisitions and mergers. Even the occasional backstabbing finds its counterpart in today’s corporate climate.

When examined as if it was a corporation, the history of Rome makes a lot more sense and comes alive so that the modern student can fully understand the nuts and bolts of how its demise came to be. The players from across the hemisphere of Roman history become more humanized and the reader starts to understand what exactly possesses somebody to make the decisions that a Caesar or a Nero might make.

Bing zeros in on the fundamental element that made Rome successful, in antiquity as an empire and by today’s standards as a corporation. Unlike many empires in the past, when a territory was sacked, the conquered people instead of being enslaved were offered Roman citizenship. Even at the dawn of the Roman empire, citizenship was often better than the paltry existence of living as a member of a different entity. Bing notes that opportunism is a timeless virtue. Continued

UNSC urges Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activities within 30 days

It's hard to say whether or not this means anything but at least the UN Security Council is trying to do something. We shall see.

After three weeks of intense negotiations, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement Wednesday afternoon calling on Iran to resume suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities within 30 days.

The statement was passed after the five permanent council members -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- reached agreement on the text earlier in the day ending three weeks of haggling over its contents.

In the statement, cosponsored by the EU trio -- Britain, France and Germany, the council noted "with serious concern" that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran."

The council called upon Iran to take steps required by the IAEA to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear program and to resolve outstanding questions.

It also "underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

The council requests IAEA Director-General Mohamed Elbaradei to deliver in 30 days a new report to the IAEA board of governors and the Security Council on Iran's compliance with IAEA demands, including the suspension of its enrichment activities.

The EU troika originally set a fortnight timeframe for Iran to comply with IAEA requirements, but it had to be extended due to strong opposition from Russia.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told Xinhua after the adoption that the statement supports diplomatic efforts to solve the Iranian nuclear issue.

"The statement sends a strong message to support the authority of the IAEA and to support all diplomatic efforts that will lead to a diplomatic solution," he stressed.

He called upon all sides concerned, including the EU troika and Russia, to further accelerate steps of diplomatic efforts outside the Security Council.

Wang's Russian counterpart Andrei Denisov echoed his position, saying the IAEA must continue to play "a central role in verifying all the evidence on the purpose and nature of the Iranian nuclear program."

He stressed that there was no evidence that Tehran was intent on building nuclear weapons, adding that "for the time being, we have strong suspicions about intentions, but only suspicions."

However, diplomats from western countries advocated that the unanimous approval send a strong message that Iran has to comply with the requests made by the IAEA.

"The ball is now back in Iran's court," French Ambassador to the UN Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told reporters after the council approved the statement.

"Iran has 30 days. We hope that Iran will comply," he noted. "If Iran doesn't comply, then the Security Council will have to take its responsibilities."

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the adoption of the statement demonstrated that "the international community is united in its concern over Iran's nuclear program."

"The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable," she said in a statement.

After the text was adopted, Iran's UN envoy Javad Zarif told reporters that he had been prevented from addressing the Council to make his case.

"We have been told this was a matter of procedure but I believe it was more than that," he said. "Iran will have to consider the statement in Tehran and will respond accordingly."

During Wednesday's negotiations, they also agreed to drop the language which would have vaguely linked Iran's nuclear program with a threat to international peace and security, in a bid to get Russia on board.

The five key council members have been wrangling over how to respond to the crisis over Iran's nuclear plan after the IAEA reported the matter to the council in early March.

The United States claims that Iran's program is designed to develop nuclear weapons. But Teheran insists that its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity and it is entitled to developing peaceful nuclear technology under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

On Thursday, foreign ministers of the five permanent council members and their German colleague are due to meet in Berlin to discuss the international community's future strategy toward Iran's nuclear issue.

A presidential statement needs consensus among the 15 council members while a resolution requires a minimum of nine votes and no veto from any of the five permanent members.

More on the Russian Spy Story

This is just a quick follow-up to the on-going story of how the Russians allegedly spied on the US on behalf of the Iraqis and possibly aided them against us at the onset of the war.

As per usual, the Russians are denying they did any such thing. That means nothing as the Russian government has a penchant for lying through its vodka soaked teeth whenever the mood strikes. If you don't believe me, just ask any Russian. Blatant lying is a Russian art form.

From Xinhua:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday rejected the U.S. charge of providing intelligence to Iraq at the start of the 2003 U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein, and said the Pentagon report was politically motivated.

The release of the Pentagon report suggested that it "has hidden political motives", Lavrov told media.

He said this move might be connected with the situation in Iraq.

Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service had also voiced its disapproval of the Pentagon's charge earlier in the weekend.

The Pentagon report claimed that Russia had delivered military intelligence obtained from sources in Qatar, where the U.S. "Central Command" was situated, to Saddam Hussein.

Just one day before the Russian foreign minister made his comments, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. government would talk with Russian authorities about the report.

"Definitely we will raise it with the Russian government," she said, adding that she hoped they would take it seriously.

According to U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, Rice might raise the issue with her Russian counterpart at a meeting of foreign ministers in Berlin on Thursday.

Of course it really doesn't matter what the Russians say as the Pentagon isn't planning on investigating this issue any further, cowards that they are these days.

From Mosnews.com:

The United States has not opened an investigation into Iraqi documents that said Russia passed information to Baghdad on U.S. military movements during the 2003 invasion, a Pentagon spokesman quoted by AFP said today.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman would not say whether the documents, one of which indicated that Russia had a spy in the U.S. military command in Qatar, had been previously investigated.

But he cautioned reporters not to “drill down into one particular document and make it more than what it is.”

“At various levels throughout the United States government these documents have been made available for people to examine and to learn lessons from,” he told reporters.

“I’m not aware at this point of any particular review, investigation, whatever you want to call it, at this particular juncture,” he said.

The existence of the captured documents was revealed in a military after-action study of the war that looked at the invasion from the Iraqi perspective.

Russia denied it had passed U.S. military information to the Iraqis, and said the accusation had never been made by U.S. officials before.

U.S. to ask Russia about Iraq report

On Meet the Press yesterday Condoleezza Rice must have told Tim Russert at least 20 times that we would be talking to the Russian government about their alleged espionage against the US at the onset of the Iraq war but until that time the accusations fell into the category of, "wait and see." I think the US regards Russia now in the same way we regard China; they are too big to take down militarily and with their markets opening to US goods, we cannot afford to alienate them. Instead our lot is to put up with a lot of crap and occasionally end up with egg on our face. When this story is all said and done I suspect that once again GW will be made to look like he hasn't the faintest clue what he is talking about when he calls Vladimir Putin a "good friend."

As far as what the report is actually saying, my instincts tell it's all more than likely true. After reading Yosseff Bodansky's "Secret History of the Iraq War," and reading how much the Russians did in fact help the Hussein regime, plus the allegations that they helped move WMD's out of Iraq before any of our boots hit the ground, to me, this is just more evidence against the Russia government.

Given the kind of business Hussein and Russia were in together (along with France) it's not like it would be out of character for the Russians to have helped the Iraq's in the first place. But like Madam Secretary said, we'll just have to talk to the Russians and see what happens. I suspect they'll be a lot of white washing and hopes that this story dies in the press seeing as if the Russians did spy, there's not a whole we can do these days to punish Russia. Hell, we can't do much to change Iran or N. Korea never mind our former Cold War adversary.

The Bush administration will ask Russia about a report that Moscow turned over information on American troop movements and other military plans to Saddam Hussein during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.

''Any implication that there were those from a foreign government who may have been passing information to the Iraqis prior to the invasion would be, of course, very worrying,'' Rice said on CNN's ''Late Edition.''

''I would think the Russians would want to take that very seriously as well,'' she said.

A G-8 boycott?

A leading Senate Democrat said if the report is found to be true, the administration should reassess its relationship with Russia and reconsider President Bush's participation in a July summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, of the world's economic powers.

Rice declined to speculate on whether Russia's actions, as detailed in a Pentagon report based on captured Iraqi documents, resulted in casualties among U.S. troops or what Russian President Vladimir Putin knew about any possible Russian involvement.

''We want to take a real hard look at the documents and then raise it with the Russian government,'' Rice said on NBC's ''Meet the Press.''

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service has dismissed the allegation that Moscow provided information to Saddam, whose government was toppled in the invasion.

'Discouraging . . . disgusting'

''I think we need an entirely new assessment of our relationships with Russia, should this be true,'' Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) told CBS' ''Face the Nation.'' He questioned whether Bush should attend the G-8 meeting in summer.

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said if the report proved true, ''it would be obviously plenty discouraging as well as disgusting'' and the United States should find ways to let the Russians know ''that kind of conduct is not going to be acceptable.''

A Pentagon report last week said two captured Iraqi documents indicate that Russia obtained information from sources ''inside the American Central Command'' in Qatar. Russia passed battlefield intelligence to Saddam through the former Russian ambassador in Baghdad, Vladimir Titorenko, the report said.

Calls to the Russian Foreign Minister on Sunday went unanswered.

New Review: The Truth About Hillary

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

Hillary Rodham Clinton once received a black eye after being trampled by a dozen wild elephants and one baby zebra on the Fourth of July during a hailstorm, according to an anonymous source. Another anonymous source stated in an interview for this review that she is the last of the Red Hot Table Top Cloggers. Finally, an anonymous source reported that Hillary Clinton was recently seen rolling down the street smoking indo, sipping on gin and juice, laid back with her mind on her money and her money on her mind.

Does this sound silly to you? Well how about if I told you that I heard from an anonymous source that Hillary Clinton is a Communist and anti-American agent, and that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist? Now, I have both of these allegations on good authority, but those that have this knowledge won’t identify themselves out of fear of reprisals by the Clintonistas. That too, would be absurd wouldn’t it? Surely one cannot openly make such brazen claims with only “anonymous sources” to back them up and the most nonsensical alibi to make sure these people cannot be identified and verified.

That in a nutshell is what makes “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein a relatively useless book. For the most part, it consists solely of the same material covered in other anti-Hillary tomes. Klein talks about her days as an overachieving youngster, then as a left-wing radical college student, her years in Washington DC pre-Arkansas, the Arkansas years, and finally the Presidential and Senatorial years. Also like many books about Hillary these days, Klein warns us that everything Hillary is doing is for the sole purpose of running for President of the United States in 2008.

Yawn. Continued

Black White Nonsense

I don’t watch much TV these days. Some wrestling here and there, the occasional cop drama (The Shield, The Wire, etc.) and that’s really it. When I can watch TV I usually just watch the news and typically I settle for the most entertaining of the bunch, Fox News.

Wait; come back, my story gets better!

However, last week I had to travel to NY for some personal business and by late Saturday night, I was so worn out that I ended up watching the first show that even looked remotely interesting. That show happened to be FX’s new reality show “Black White” which is produced by rapper turned actor extraordinaire Ice Cube.

The premise of the show is that we have two families, one black and one white, whom will live together in a house for a certain period of time and will be made to look like the opposite of their race; the black family will be turned white and the white family turned black, through the magic of Hollywood makeup. Then, once each family member has been altered, they are to go out and experience the world as a new race and report back to the producers, hilarity ensues.

Just from the previews, I thought this show looked ridiculous but you’d be surprised what you’ll watch when you are dog-tired and TNA Impact isn’t on for another hour. As I watched the plot for this episode unfold I had an epiphany based on the behavior of the players in this reality drama. When it comes to race relations, black people in general have the personality of a victim borderline personality disorder.

That’s right, I said it, black people in general, when the issue of race comes seem to act like they have borderline personality disorder.

Now just what the heck is borderline personality disorder, you are asking?

A person with a borderline personality disorder often experiences a repetitive pattern of disorganization and instability in self-image, mood, behavior and close personal relationships. This can cause significant distress or impairment in friendships and work. A person with this disorder can often be bright and intelligent, and appear warm, friendly and competent. They sometimes can maintain this appearance for a number of years until their defense structure crumbles, usually around a stressful situation like the breakup of a romantic relationship or the death of a parent.

Relationships with others are intense but stormy and unstable with marked shifts of feelings and difficulties in maintaining intimate, close connections. The person may manipulate others and often has difficulty with trusting others. There is also emotional instability with marked and frequent shifts to an empty lonely depression or to irritability and anxiety. There may be unpredictable and impulsive behavior which might include excessive spending, promiscuity, gambling, drug or alcohol abuse, shoplifting, overeating or physically self-damaging actions such as suicide gestures. The person may show inappropriate and intense anger or rage with temper tantrums, constant brooding and resentment, feelings of deprivation, and a loss of control or fear of loss of control over angry feelings. There are also identity disturbances with confusion and uncertainty about self-identity, sexuality, life goals and values, career choices, friendships. There is a deep-seated feeling that one is flawed, defective, damaged or bad in some way, with a tendency to go to extremes in thinking, feeling or behavior. Under extreme stress or in severe cases there can be brief psychotic episodes with loss of contact with reality or bizarre behavior or symptoms. Even in less severe instances, there is often significant disruption of relationships and work performance. The depression which accompanies this disorder can cause much suffering and can lead to serious suicide attempts.

One of the main elements of recognizing someone with BPD is projection of feelings onto others. What the BPD person will typically do, and what I saw the black folks in this show do is ascribe particularly intense and negative emotions to their white counterparts, when they themselves were the ones feeling those emotions. In other words, the black family kept insinuating that the white family was racist or that everything they did was a subtle knock on the black race when in fact it was the black family that continually displayed intolerance.

The first example started right at the beginning of the show. The two moms are sitting with their dialect coach to learn how to speak with the inflection of the race they are playing. On the practice sheet in front of them are a list of words, one of which is “bitch.” The white mom then says in what was obviously a playful manner, “Yo bitch!” Now I’m not saying the white woman made the best choice there but haven’t we all made a wet-fart-in-church type joke that we thought was in the spirit of the moment and it turned out not to be so funny. You can accuse her of being a dork and little on the stupid side but she wasn’t being a racist by any stretch of the imagination.

However, the black mother of course goes right off the deep end. At that moment and for the majority of the episode, the black mother goes on and on and on and on and on and on about this woman is a racist and nobody calls a black a bitch and blah blah blah. The white practically begs for forgiveness and explains quite clearly that it was an innocent remark bred in naïve stupidity. Not having says the black mother, clearly the white woman is racist in the mind of the black woman.

But that’s not all that happened.

Now the white woman is in her black person makeup and the two women are shopping the black part of town at a street market. Mind you, the whole purpose of being there is to shop where black people, for what black people might buy. They walk into a clothing store and one of the wares being sold is a dashiki. Granted you don’t see too many average black people donning the dashiki at the mall but at least some do wear them or the shopkeeper wouldn’t be selling them. The white woman sees one she likes and buys it. Of course the black woman sees this yet again as example of racism and that the white has gone “too far.”

There were a few more examples where the same thing happens. The white folks try in earnest to experience life as black people and the blacks folks in turn call them racist. That is when it hit me, it isn’t that the while folks on the show hate blacks at all; the black folks hate white people and apparently are uncomfortable saying so out loud. So, like a client with BPD, they project their own feelings of hate and anger on to white people, crying racism at every turn.

It isn’t just on “Black White” that I’ve noticed this pattern. I’ve worked with black families, from all different strata’s of life and this pattern has repeated itself . Any challenge or feeling of unease that a black person is made to endure, that would be typical among any other combination of races seems to be met with cries of racism. It is obvious to me that the reason is, deep down, on some level, their exists to this day, a seething hatred of the white race in black people that no matter what happens, will always show itself in times of stress. And as evidenced by the characters on “Black White” this hatred will typically be projected on whites that have long ago learned to accept black people as their brothers and sisters.

To paraphrase Dennis Miller, but that’s just my opinion, I could be a racist myself.

Majority of Palestinians support Hamas-Israel talks: poll

When you see something like this, you have to hope it's more than just wishful thinking. You would think that despite its rhetoric of wanting to destroy Israel, which is written in Hamas' charter, that they would still not blow this historic chance at lasting peace in the Middle East. With the majority of Palestinians supporting peace with their geographically close neighbor, there might be a sliver of hope that that the "Roadmap" will actually continue to be pursued and acted upon.

A quick not on violent rhetoric; Iran, Venezuela and North Korea all have a penchant for running on at the mouth, despite any real intentions to ever actually carry out their threats. Either that or their threats are mired in circumstances that would have kept them subdued anyway. My point is, much ado was made of Hamas' charter regarding Israel and in a perfect world I would want them to change it too, but blathering violently seems to be a cultural thing for countries without real international muscle. I think Israel and Co. have to be the bigger people and interact with these countries despite their nonsensical remarks about destruction and violence...at least until the rest of world grows up.

An opinion poll showed on Tuesday that 75 percent of the Palestinians support peace negotiations between the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Israel.

The poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Researches and Survey in the West Bank, said that 64 percent of those inquired agree to push forward the peace process, while 14 percent reject it.

Fifty-three percent of the inquired expressed hope that a new cabinet led by Ismail Haneya from Hamas would be able to implement the roadmap peace plan, while 40 percent reject it.

Asked about the prospect of the Hamas-led cabinet, 70 percent said that the cabinet would succeed, while 22 percent envisaged failure of the government.

Meanwhile, 68 percent believe that the Palestinian National Authority can not manage without international aid, and 50 percent said that the aid would come to an end after Hamas assumes office.

French students, police clash in labor protests

The following was paid for by John Brodigan for a Better America

This story really does just blog itself. All I have to add is "Viva La Resistance!"

So to quote a close, personal friend of mine (who returns to active duty tomorrow, and you won't believe what's grinding his gears this week), here's the story:

PARIS - Students clashed with police and activists rampaged through a McDonald’s restaurant and torched the entrance to a Gap store in the capital Saturday as demonstrations against a government plan to loosen job protections spread in a widening arc across France.

The protests against the law, which drew some 500,000 people in cities across the country, were the biggest show yet of escalating anger that is testing the strength of the conservative government before elections next year.

The rallies and marches were largely peaceful, but police fired tear gas during confrontations with stone-throwing youths in Paris. Four officers and 12 protesters were injured, and police arrested at least 59 people, Paris officials said.

Click here for more...

New Review: My Year In Iraq

The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:

Iraq is the great mess of the modern era. By mentioning the country’s name in a passing conversation, you’ll invite a plethora of opinions that will make your head spin: we’re there because Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11, we’re there for oil, Hussein had WMDs and would have given them to Osama bin Laden, Hussein had no WMDs because we’ve been bombing him in the north and south for 10 years, the WMDs he had were moved to Syria, we’re there to promote freedom, we’re there because Hussein tried to kill Dubya’s daddy, we need to stay until the job is done, we never should have went in the first place, etc etc.

As mired in controversy as Iraq has been, one of the most consistent points that have been made (and probably the most believable) is that a Westernized Democratic Iraq will be the greatest resource in the global fight against fanatical Muslim terrorism. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities to believe that democracy in Iraq could spread across the Middle East, thus eliminating the abject poverty and anger that fuels pro-radical Islamist terrorism and anti-Americanism. Now if you agree with this premise, you must also realize that saying that we’re going to have democracy in Iraq is much easier said than done.

Enter Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, whom President George W. Bush appointed presidential envoy to Iraq and administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). This was the man who actually volunteered for a one-year tour of duty in probably the hottest zone in the world outside of Central and East Africa. He had the relatively thankless job of holding Iraq together while it tried to rebuild itself not just after a brief war, but after decades of maltreatment by one of the world's most sadistic and brutal dictators, Saddam Hussein.

Ambassador Bremer has written a memoir of his time spent in Iraq titled, “My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope,” and it is probably the best resource for understanding just how difficult the rebuilding and rehabilitation process has been for Iraq. Bremer covers in intimate detail everything from why he volunteered for this job and his reservations therein, to his battles and near undoing by the Pentagon, to his rather close relationship with President Bush and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. Continued

Agatha Radulich (1917-2006)

"Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. " -Psalm 30:5-

Mark just sent word that his other grandmother, Agatha, passed away at 11:00 this morning. If you could please keep him and his family in your thoughts and prayers, this has been a very difficult month for them.

God Bless.

-John Brodigan

Queer Eye for Leiberman?

The following was paid for by John Brodigan for a Better America

Time Magazine has an article this week on different advertising techniques the candidates are planning on using in 2008. Internet, text messages...you won't be able to turn around without seeing a candidates name somewhere, and that's fine. Everyone is advertising everything everywhere anyway, so why not the Presidential candidates trying to convince you that they suck less than the other guy?

So I'm reading the article, and I came across this paragraph. If it's true, things have done gone to far. If this is really where our Presidential campaigns are headed, dust off the chesterfield because I'm moving to Ontario...

Keeping supporters passionate is important, but to win elections you have to sway the undecideds. If they won't watch ads, at least one possible candidate thinks they might watch the campaign. "We've discussed the possibility of doing a reality show," says a Senate aide whose boss is contemplating a long-shot White House bid in '08. "The obvious danger is that it would have to be warts and all to be credible, and you'd have to give up some control. The upside is people get emotionally invested in the candidate." The aide emphasizes that no offers exist yet. "But," he adds, "it's inevitable that somebody's going to do it, so why not us?"

I can't even find the words.

Stock Tips are like Assholes

(EDITORS NOTE: I'm not Mark. I'm John. Sadly they're taking Mark's other grandmother off of the respirator this week, so he asked me to fill in for him while he's with his family. This is a post I had originally written for my blog. I'll have something more up Mark's political alley later in the week.

You can send your prayers and well wishes to Mark and his family here.)


I've been playing the market as of late. This is the first time in a few years that I have a steady job and am making a few sheckles, plus in order for me to fully embrace conservatism I really should have a stock portfolio.

It's also something I've wanted to do for a while. One of my regrets was that I didn't invest in my old company when it was at $.12 a share. I could have gotten 1,000 for $120. If they went bankrupt, BFD? It's only $120, and I would be more concerned trying to find a new job (which I wound up being anyway). If it hit, I could make some decent money. But I got scared since my few of the market is people jumping off of buildings when they lose. The company, when it was taken off the market, was at $9.76 a share. Do the math.

So for the past few months I've been garnishing some of my weekly wages, putting them in an investment account, and set forth to make my fortune. My first fiscal quarter is almost over, and I am happy to announce that I'm up 4.4%! Go me. A few of my friends have been asking me about it, so I thought I'd share a little of what I did and learned thus far.

FORWARD LEANING STATEMENTS
I'm not an expert. I don't even play one on TV. And as a matter of full disclosure, my holdings are Marvel Entertainment (MVL), Lion's Gate Films (LGF), World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), Nokia (NOK), Hasbro (HAS), and Activision (ATVI). Apparently when you write about stocks you're supposed to disclose your holdings, so I thought I'd do it all at once.

MONEY
I take 10% of my monthly salary and invest it. It's just like putting the money in a savings account, only with a risk. Plus on an average, stocks yield 11% in interest, so it's a good risk. I chose Schwab.com to open my account. I saw a bunch of commercials for different sites, but Schwab was the easiest for me to figure out plus the others usually had an minimum account balance you needed to keep.

I also take another 10% and opened an ING Direct account, just because having a cash account makes sense too. Things might be a little tight this year, but after living paycheck to paycheck since...well, since I ever started working in the first place, another year won't kill me to make sure I never have to do that again.

READ AND WATCH TV
There are two websites I go to. One is Finance@yahoo.com, and the other is TheStreet.com. Both are free, and both have invaluable advice. The Street (owned by CNBC's Jim Cramer) sends me a newsletter everyday that collects the different articles on the site. The finance page at yahoo lets you create your own watch list, and collects relevant articles from all over cyberspace.

Bookwise, I started with "Make More Money Now" by John Bradshaw Layfield. Yes, THAT John Bradshaw Layfield. My thinking was that it'd be a good read for someone like me, without having to grab one of them "Dummies" or "Complete Idiot's" books. I've also just started reading Cramer's "Sane Investing in an Insane World."

Then you have television. CNBC is great, particularly Jim Cramer's "Mad Money." He's insane, and he makes investing seem fun. You also have the Saturday morning finance shows on Fox News. Yes, we all know Fox News is evil and totally biased towards conservatives. I mean, when all other networks have the President's approval rating at 33%, Fox has it at 39%! Totally scandalous! But seriously folks, I'm not endorsing drilling in Alaska or cutting Justice David Souter's brakes. These (the analysts on Fox) are simply people who have been very successful making a lot of money in the stock market, and they bring up interesting points. One of them is even Wayne Rogers from M*A*S*H. How can you not trust Trapper John McIntyre?

You'll be surprised what some of the research might uncover. I was avoiding WWE, mainly because as a wrestling fan, the product bores the hell out of me and I don't see it reaching another high peak like it did a few years ago. Yet, it was always a highly rated stock and I couldn't find out why. Once I read how hot digital media is going to be in the future (they have their own channel), and reminding myself how well their international business does, I decided to go for it. My stock is up 11% since investing.

TWO THINGS I'VE LEARNED
1. Oil prices go up, stock prices go down. I don't know why.

2. When a company announces it's earning before trading starts, that's generally good news. When they announce them and the end of the day, that's generally bad news.

KNOW WHAT YOU'RE INVESTING IN
My mom keeps telling me about how she and my dad invested when they were told it was a good time to do so, and lost all the money they invested. Here's the thing. She doesn't even remember what they invested in. That's the wrong way to do it, plus there's no excuse these days when you have a wealth of information and research at your fingertips.

I chose Marvel because I know Marvel. They were the fastest growing New York Company in 2005. They just signed a licensing deal with Hasbro, and starting in 2007 will license their characters for new action figure, video games, and anything else Hasbro wants to do with them. They've got three movies coming out in '07 (Ghost Rider, Spider Man 2, and Fantastic Four 2) plus a little movie coming out in May called X-Men. This was a no brainer for me, and my stock is up 14%.

Conversely, I had invested in a company called JDS Uniphase (JDSU). I know nothing aboot fiber optics, but Cramer highly suggested it and I got in when it was $3.07 a share. Their most recent earnings weren't as high as expected, I had read a number of experts start to sour on tech. I didn't know what that meant and realized that I know nothing about fiber optics, so I got scared and got out when shares dipped to $2.94.

They closed Friday at $3.70. Do the math there.

That's been my journey thus far. I started with a $150 and it's basically just been a lot of reading and a lot of checking Yahoo Finance ever five minutes to make sure that the market hasn't crashed. It hasn't so far. :-)

Book Review: The Search

Welcome to the Information Age!

In today’s global community, each and every citizen of the world is connected by bandwidth and a simple personal computer. At any given time I can access information on nearly an infinite amount of subjects ranging from the complex to the absurd. I can communicate instantaneously with 1 or 1000 people at once, from as near as the next room to as far as Beijing. This is the new frontier: complete access to the world and everything in it from the easy chair in my den…in my pajamas.

However, navigating this massive index of information is the tricky part. You have to know what exactly it is you are searching for and how to manipulate the tools that will extract the information for you. The computer is an exacting mistress and we mere mortals tend to be a rather vague bunch. For those of you who have ever said or heard someone else say, “You know that thing, that thing with the guy who was like, you know, tall…” then you know what I’m talking about. It can be a frustrating experience trying to translate obtuse human thought into acute computer language.

Click here for more...

High property taxes driving a new revolt

Owning property is part of the American dream. It falls under the "pursuit of happiness" category that we bandy about when speaking of the American Dream. At least since the end of World War II and the advent of GI loans, men and women have raced to open fields to buy a plot of their own. This would be there nest egg to live in and raise a family. Owning a house was an accomplishment and couples lived for the day when then could have a mortgage burning party, a day that signified freedom from economic burden.

But there were always taxes. Usually the taxes in each community were fair and equitable. The proceeds were spent in the community you lived in and the results were usually very obvious. Taxes were spent on new roads, traffic signals, parks, preserves, more police, more resources for the local schools and a whole host of other items. This is why most people didn't mind paying their taxes. It may have taken money out of ones pocket but it went to worthy causes that improved the neighborhood.

However, if your locally elected politicians raised taxes like a gambling addict in a high-stakes poker game, you could always vote the bum out, as they say.

The problem as of late is tied to the housing boom. Not only are property values skyrocketing, but also now so are taxes as the two are indelibly tied to one another. Property taxes are going through the roof in many places making it unaffordable for the average Joe to make a life for himself and his family. As somebody whom is now a homeowner, I can feel his pain. You invest your life into something that's supposed to make it better and then after the bills are paid you are lucky if you have enough gas to get to work.

The other option would be to move to a less expensive neighborhood but even that has its problems. For one, less expensive is a relative term these days as even the crappiest ghettos are getting facelifts. It was not that long when I worked in New York City and the residents of Harlem were getting upset over a luxury condo being built in the vicinity of their 3-family Brownstones. Gentrification, that's what they were afraid of. They'd lived in Harlem for most of their lives and they didn't want to be driven from THEIR neighborhood that through think and thin, they'd survived in by Mr. Whitefolks and his newfound courage to move back to the big bad city. Who can hardly blame them?

But this exactly what is happening in areas outside of Harlem as far away as Idaho. However, if there's one thing that gets the dander up of the average unread American is unfair taxation, thus a tax revolt is in full swing.

ABC News reports that, "In Orford, N.H., a tin-roofed hunting cabin worth $10,000 was recently assessed at $200,000, just for its mountain view. Taxes on the cabin and its outhouse skyrocketed.

Around Lake Tahoe, along the California-Nevada border, property taxes have shot up 135 percent in the past four years.

Residents of Beaufort, S.C., pay $17 million more in property taxes today than in 2000.

Welcome to the flip side of the real estate boom. Years of rising home values have boosted property taxes steadily. Now, homeowners across the United States are fighting back.

"Real estate growth and real estate boom seem to be happening all over the country and [property-tax revolt] is an inevitable consequence," says Roger Sherman, a property tax expert in Boise, Idaho.

This year, legislative proposals, citizen initiatives, and lawsuits are on the agenda in at least 20 states. These new efforts reflect both residents' distrust of how their property tax dollars are being spent and concerns that rising assessments are driving working-class people out of popular towns and cities."

The article cites some specific areas where the tax revolt is happening:

" Idaho: Lawmakers are mulling over eight bills limiting property taxes. One would revise the "homestead exemption," which now keeps the first $50,000 of a home's value off the tax rolls. The bill boosts that to $100,000.

" South Carolina: Having capped the rise in property tax assessments at 3 percent per year until a home is sold or improved, the legislature is now considering a rollback of property taxes, replacing them with a hike in the sales tax.

" Georgia: Many lawmakers are backing legislation that would put a similar 3 percent cap into the state constitution.

" Nevada: Protesters are gathering signatures for a citizen initiative that would require the state to refund taxpayers if state revenues rise faster than inflation. They also want to cap the growth in property tax bills at 1 percent per year.

" Connecticut: After an uproar over massive assessment hikes for lakefront properties around the state, state officials have ordered cities and towns that have seen property tax spikes to calibrate disputed assessments to "comparable" properties, based on records of recent sales.

Ultimately our governments cannot tax their voters into bankruptcy and abject poverty. As I've said before this housing bubble has to burst and when it does, taxes will have to fall. It is only a matter time.

Hypocrisy and Friendship: The New Cold War

Nearly everyday the question regarding our involvement in Iraq is asked, “Why are we there?” The answer our president has given is, “We are there to bring democracy to a place where there was once tyranny.” I’ll grant you that he came up with this well after the original reason, to disarm former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction, turned to ashes in his mouth. However, even if it was our third or fourth reason to justify invasion, the theory I believe is sound. A viable democracy in the Middle East could start a cascade effect, spreading outward from Iraq and Afghanistan and summarily ridding terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda a place to organize.

It’s really not that bizarre of an idea.

The problem is, as with all things concerning the Bush Administration, is a matter of consistency. We’re standing firm with this noble idea that it is good to depose tyrants in the world and allow all people to be free in the hopes that free people will maximize the potential for relative peace around the globe. However, as Eddie Izzard once said, “If we’re going to just take it upon ourselves to get rid of tyrants, well then let’s get rid of all tyrants then, not just the one we don’t like….are we going in alphabetical order starting with ‘S’?”

Bush and company talk a fairly good game when it comes to certain dictatorships they don’t like. They brought down their old buddy Saddam because he was a loose end as well as a loose cannon and probably felt like it was only a matter of time before the piece of Cold War strategery came back to haunt them. Of course they don’t like Iran because of that whole “death to America” business not to mention hard feelings from the overthrow of the Shah. And if it weren’t for either China or Russia, North Korea would be a steaming pile of ash by now, as they present no real strategic or economic value to the world. These are easy totalitarian countries to pick on.

But when Bush talks about Russia all of a sudden that very same lack of democracy is overlooked and Moscow is regarded as a, “good friend.” Bush has practically gushed over Putin, who by all accounts has become as close to a Stalinist as one could be without killing millions of your own people (for more on this read Kremlin Rising).

Despite what is apparently Bush’s wishful thinking regarding our friends to the East, the Council on Foreign Relations has presented a more accurate portrayal of where Russia is headed and what that means to us.

Almost 15 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, ties between Russia and the United States are "headed in the wrong direction", suggests a new report released here this week by the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

In addition to disagreements over an increasing number of foreign-policy issues - most recently, Moscow's hosting of top officials of the Palestinian Hamas party - the US is concerned about internal developments in Russia, particularly what it regards as the growing concentration of power in the Kremlin under President Vladimir Putin.

"At a time when the president of the United States has made democracy a goal of American foreign policy, Russia's political system is becoming steadily more authoritarian," according to "Russia's Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do", the 98-page product of a CFR task force that included many top US experts and former policymakers who have specialized in Russian affairs.

"Russia is a less open and less democratic society than just a few years ago, and the rollback of pluralism and centralization of power may not have run their course," says the report, which is likely to strengthen those in the administration of US President George W Bush and Congress who have called for a tougher line with Moscow. Google Source

Russia has been sliding back toward totalitarianism for some time now. Even as Bush was inviting Putin to the ranch and calling him a good friend to America, Putin was very visibly imprisoning those who threatened his power, taking over media stations and committing near genocide in Chechnya. You’ll notice that there’s very little mention of this in the mainstream news except for the one time Bill Maher alluded to it on his late night cable show.

Even today the tone regarding Russia is so much softer than the one we reserve for Iran or North Korea. This stark hypocrisy and unwillingness to face reality has pretty much given Moscow the opportunity to go hog wild in reconstituting itself as a superpower that will stand directly opposite of the US.

For example, where we try to send a message to the terrorist groups Hamas that anti-Semitism and threats of violence are not acceptable in any governmental body, Moscow practically falls over itself to extend an olive branch.

Hamas' leader hailed his Moscow talks as an end to the militant Palestinian group's international isolation and said Russia's position in negotiations differed from that of the United States and other Western nations, according to an interview published Monday.

Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal, whose three-day visit ended Sunday, told the daily Vremya Novostei that "Moscow became the place where we opened the door to the entire global community."

"It broke the blockade which Israel and the United States have been trying to impose on us," Mashaal said.

He also said that "Russia's position is completely unlike that of the West," and praised Russian officials for understanding Hamas' stance.

Many Russian media and observers hailed the Kremlin invitation to Hamas as helping boost the Russian role in Middle East peacemaking. Geidar Dzhemal, a Moscow-based Islamic affairs analyst, said talks with Hamas also helped the Kremlin win stronger sympathy from the estimated 20 million Muslims who make up nearly 14 percent of Russia's population. "That was a very successful spin by Putin," Dzhemal told reporters Monday.

But Alexei Malashenko, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Russia's hosting of Hamas was unnecessarily warm. "Hamas should have been given a pat on the shoulder, but they had a passionate tango instead," Malashenko told Gazeta. Source

Russia not only opposes sanctions against their buddies in Tehran, but now they also oppose sanctions against North Korea. Russia opposes any kind of sanctions against what the United States calls rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, Glev Ivashentsov, Moscow's top diplomat to Seoul, said on Tuesday.

His remarks came as U.S. and North Korean officials were to hold a meeting in New York later in the day amid Washington's financial sanctions against Pyongyang for the communist state's alleged counterfeiting of U.S. dollars.

``In principle, we are against any economic sanctions because they do not work,'' Ivashentsov told The Korea Times after a forum hosted by the Korea News Editors' Association in Seoul.

``There should be dialogue, there should be consultation, but sanctions do not work neither against North Korea, nor against Iran, nor against any other country,'' he said. Source

To quote from the movie Aliens, “What exactly are we suppose to use, harsh language?”

Apparently that’s exactly what Russia would like our global reach to be cut down to. At the end of the day, what Russia, China, the Middle East and to a lesser extent the European Union really want is for the US to be disarmed of its military and economic strength. It’s the rest of the world that wants set tones and pace. That’s probably been the single biggest problem with Iraq. We’ve invested so much time, energy and resources into this one affair that we’ve compromised our ability to deal effectively with the rest of the world and now places like Russia are jumping at the window of opportunity to assert themselves and dominant powers.

Meanwhile, we’re still harping about spreading democracy in a world that spits on it.